Imran Khan Qureshi

MIAN KISI KO BHI NEW YEAR WISH NAHI KARONGA BECOUSE JAHILO AKHIR TM NEW YAER Q
MANATAY HO KIYA KHAS BAAT HA IS MAIN WAHI SUBHA WAHI DOPEHER WAHI SHAAM KOI KHAS YA
NAI BAAT HO TO HUM CELEBRAT BHI KARE ISE KUCH BHI TOU NAYA NAHI TOU Q HM MANAYE HApPy
BAKWASSSSSS NeW YeAr........................ FAZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
2 hours ago · Delete

Thursday 10 December 2009

Search
Search

• Home
• Visiting
• About
• Parliamentary Business
• MPs, Lords and Offices
• Get Involved
• Topical Issues
• Education

• MPs and Lords

• Government & Opposition
• Parliamentary Offices
• Members' Allowances
• Standards

You are here: Parliament Home Page > Directories >

House of Commons Information Office

House of Commons Information Office

The House of Commons Information Office answers questions about the business, history
and membership of the House of Commons. We also provide a range of services and
publications that are detailed below.

Unfortunately we cannot answer questions on the interpretation of legislation or on

government and political party policy, past or present. Such enquiries should be directed
to the relevant government department or political party.

If you have an enquiry about the work of the House of Lords, please contact the House of
Lords Information Office

• Enquiries
• Publications & Services
• Visiting

Enquiries
Telephone enquiries

Tel: 020 7219 4272

Hours (during session) Hours (during recess)

9am-6pm (Monday to Thursday) 9am-5pm (Monday to Thursday)
9am-4.30pm (Friday) 9am-4pm (Friday)

Callers with a text phone can talk through Typetalk

Direct dial: 18001 020 7219 4272
Via a Typetalk operator: 0870 240 9598

Written enquiries
By email:
hcinfo@parliament.uk

By letter:
House of Commons Information Office
Norman Shaw North
London SW1A 2TT

Please note, the HCIO does not forward email to Members of Parliament. Email links,
where available, can be found in the Alphabetical List of Members of Parliament.

Written enquiries are answered within ten working days of receipt. A telephone call often
produces a speedier answer to simple queries. To avoid delay, mail intended for
individual Members should not be sent via the Information Office, but addressed to the
individual Member at the House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA. Bulk mail, to
multiple Members, will be returned to sender.

Publications & Services

The House of Commons Information Office provides a range of services and publications
available on the Parliament website:

• A series of Factsheets on Parliamentary procedure, legislation, Members,

Elections and the House of Commons. Hard copies of these factsheets are
available upon request.
• Using the Find Your MP service you can find out details about your local
Member of Parliament searching by postcode, name or constituency.
• The HCIO updates the Parliamentary Calendar with House of Commons business.
You can browse past business or find out what's coming up in Parliament.
• This Week's Business is a printable guide to the week ahead in the House of
Commons
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Lists of Members, Ministers and Committees including email and website links
for Members where available. These lists are updated within 24 hours of changes
being announced.
• Weekly Information Bulletin - a digest of the activities of the House in the
preceding and forthcoming week.
• Sessional Information Digest - a summary of business and publications for a
parliamentary session. This publication is a cumulation of the Weekly
Information Bulletin.

The House of Commons Library produces a range of research papers and standard notes
on subjects such as: central government, constitution, Crown, devolution, elections,
Parliament and political parties. This research is available on the Parliament website:
Parliament and Constitution.
Visiting
The Parliament website provides information on how you can attend a debate, arrange a
tour and climb Big Ben: Visiting Parliament

The House of Commons Information office can also provide information about visiting
the House. Please telephone or email us for details of business and sitting times for the
House of Commons.

The House of Commons Information Office staff the information desk in Westminster
Hall.

• A-Z Index
• Accessibility
• Jobs
• Contact Us
• Freedom of Information
• Glossary
• Help
• Using this website

Page updated: 13/11/2009 17:55

Booking and enquiries

Education Service
Houses of Parliament
London SW1A 2TT

020 7219 4496

education@parliament.uk

I thing best way to communicate to him I thought we r get by this inshallah

UK Visa Services
UK Visa Services

WELCOME
Mr. Khanzada /khanzada
Client ID: UK-5592033
UK RULES
Conclusions and recommendations

The Points Based System and the current economic climate

1. There are arguments both for and against a limit on the number of economic
migrants, and about the impact of migration, population growth and population
density on resources and public services. We do not, however, consider these
arguments in this Report, nor make any assessment of their relative merit, since
they fall outside the terms of reference of our inquiry. (Paragraph 49)

2. In the context of the current economic climate it is all the more important that
the Points Based System is able to respond flexibly to changing economic and labour
market needs, and that the process of assessing shortage and awarding points for
skill is accurate, fair and transparent. Given that the number of job vacancies in the
UK has reduced by a third over the last year and currently stands at its lowest level
since comparable records began in 2001, it is obvious and right that employers
should seek to recruit first from the UK labour market. However, where there are
certain skills of which a genuine shortage exists, recruitment from outside the EEA
should be allowed if otherwise the UK's global competitiveness could be harmed.
(Paragraph 50)

Shortages

3. Our inquiry discerned different types of labour shortage. The three particular
types thrown up by the evidence we took across a range of sectors could be
summarised as: highly specialist skills not available in the resident workforce;
shortages due to unattractive wages or conditions; and shortages due to insufficient
investment in skills. (Paragraph 66)

4. It seems that where genuine shortages exist—for a range of reasons—which

cannot be filled from within the UK or EEA labour force, a combination of short-
term migration of non-EEA nationals with longer-term investment in the retraining
of the British population is justified. We note that there is a case that the availability
of migrant labour may lessen the incentive for employers to recruit and train the
resident UK labour force. This makes it all the more important that the points
criteria be robust, the resident labour market test rigorously enforced, and that
priority be given to investment in retraining the resident population. (Paragraph 67)

5. We therefore conclude that the Government needs to redouble its efforts to link
skills shortages to training. The very recent creation of a new Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) from the previously separate Department for
Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) and Department for
Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) offers the chance to give fresh impetus to
linking training to the needs of the economy and skills gaps in the resident
population. (Paragraph 68)

6. Some occupations on the shortage occupation lists reflect areas of long term
structural shortages, or exceptional talent at the international level: these shortages
are unlikely to change quickly. The long term inclusion of occupations such as
skilled ballet dancer, for instance, appears to be to compensate for poor design
elsewhere in the system—namely that it cannot recognise the skills of this
occupation through the points criteria. It seems questionable whether the lists can at
the same time be both a short term flexible resource, and provide for long term
chronic shortages. We therefore recommend that long term and structural
shortages should be addressed by adapting the points criteria, and not by inclusion
on the lists. The shortage occupation lists should instead be used only to provide a
degree of flexibility for short term or cyclical shortages in exceptional
circumstances. (Paragraph 78)

7. There appears to be some disparity between Professor Metcalf's statement that,

in certain industries which experience cyclical shortages, the labour market changes
"profoundly very quickly" and the Government's assertion that the six-monthly
reviews of the shortage occupation lists would be frequent enough to "keep the lists
current". Bearing in mind that shortages could emerge in a sector up to six months
in advance of the next list, and would inevitably take some weeks, if not months,
following the inclusion of that occupation on the list to fill, it is hard to see how the
lists can represent a flexible and speedy method of responding to labour shortages.
The converse is also true: where changing economic circumstances mean that
resident workers are able to fill vacancies included on the lists, those occupations
may need to be removed more quickly. Given our previous recommendation—that
the lists be reserved only for short term or cyclical shortages—the Government
should consider whether the lists need to be updated on a more frequent, or rolling,
basis. (Paragraph 79)

8. A resident labour market test is in principle a useful tool for assessing the skills
of the resident population before a migrant is considered for employment. However
the current test does not seem to command confidence amongst jobseekers,
employers or other commentators. It is vital that unscrupulous employers are
prevented from obeying merely the letter, and not the spirit, of the test by
advertising in obscure locations or at unrealistic rates. To this end we recommend
that the Government again review the operation of the test to ensure that it is
rigorously enforced, including considering the introduction of some form of
independent inspection of its application. Use of a one-size-fits-all test, in particular
the requirement that all employers advertise through JobCentre Plus, neither
effectively targets the jobless resident population, nor appeals to the right workforce
to fill specialist jobs. (Paragraph 80)

9. If the Migration Advisory Committee were to recommend that the resident

labour market test and intra-company transfer routes be closed, leaving the
shortage occupation lists as the only route for skilled migrants under Tier 2, it is
very difficult to imagine that political pressure would not be placed on the
Committee to include or exclude certain occupations. Whilst we were concerned to
hear of possible abuses of the resident labour market test, we do not consider that
restricting migration to the shortage occupation lists alone would be an appropriate
or effective response. (Paragraph 81)

Points criteria: fair, transparent, flexible?

10. Although we welcome the aim of transparency and the introduction of objective
criteria under the Points Based System, measuring skill primarily on criteria such
as past earnings or academic qualifications gives undue priority to easily-
quantifiable attributes and ignores ability or experience. For instance, it seems
spurious that a Master's graduate fresh from university on their first job should
qualify as a 'highly-skilled migrant' under Tier 1, whereas a businessperson of 25
years' global experience and earnings of hundreds of thousands of pounds but
without a Master's degree would not. (Paragraph 111)

11. In particular, the overemphasis on formal qualifications at the expense of

professional experience or training is arbitrary and unfair. Practitioners of several
very skilled professions under Tier 2—such as ballet dancers, chefs or musicians—
often do not hold formal qualifications. Rather than including such professions on a
shortage occupation list, the Government should draw up a list of high-level training
or professional experience, by sector, which it will accept as a substitute for
academic qualifications. (Paragraph 112)

12. With respect to the maintenance requirement, we agree with the Government
that there is no circumventing the fact that there is a set cost of living in the UK,
regardless of whether meeting that cost is more or less onerous on migrants from
different parts of the world. We therefore consider that requiring migrants to be
able to support themselves at the rate of £800 for each month they are in the UK is
not discriminatory, and that it is reasonable to measure this by setting a
maintenance sum which migrants must demonstrate that they have saved prior to
entry. (Paragraph 113)

13. We welcome the Government's assurances that salary requirements will be

adjusted to allow for the varying earning capacity of different countries using
inflators. This is important to guard against discrimination against migrants from
developing countries. (Paragraph 114)

14. We accept that there are a small minority of specialised professions—such as

chefs in international restaurants, or international artists—in which knowledge of
the English language may not be vital to the core tasks of the job. We are
nevertheless of the view that knowledge of English is necessary for living in and
integrating into British society, and do not therefore consider it unreasonable for
the Government to make a basic level of English language a prerequisite for
migration to this country. (Paragraph 115)

15. We are at a loss to understand why specific exemption from the English
language requirement has been made for footballers and not for any other
occupation which requires international mobility. Although we acknowledge that
the business of international transfers is transacted quickly, and that players
themselves may have little control over their move, we do not consider a basic level
of competence in English to be beyond the reach of footballers, either in terms of
ability or of time. We therefore conclude this to be a case where money has spoken
louder than merit and urge the Government to reverse its exemption. (Paragraph
116)

16. We agree with the Government that it is reasonable to expect ministers of

religion to possess a higher than basic level of English language in order to
communicate with their worshippers, and consider that their fluency in English
ought to be on a similar level to that required from academics and other similarly
skilled migrants. (Paragraph 117)

17. We note that there is value in the proposition made by the Chinese Immigration
Concern Committee and Unite that English classes could be provided in-country,
but we consider that this should be an additional, not an alternative, requirement.
We recommend that the Government give consideration to how better provision of
language teaching for migrants could be made in the UK, including placing a
heavier responsibility onto employers to facilitate and pay for it. (Paragraph 118)

Sponsorship

18. Employers and educators, as the sponsors of migrants, are expected to take on
greater responsibility for migrants' compliance with immigration controls. In return
for taking on these duties, they have a right to expect a high quality service from the
UK Border Agency. In providing this high quality service, the UK Border Agency
must ensure speedy decision-making, access to helpful and well-informed staff in the
UK and overseas, and consultation with sponsors to meet their concerns about the
design or administration of the new system. (Paragraph 135)

19. There is clearly great nervousness amongst sponsors over the possible civil and
criminal penalties attached to any failure, even unwitting, to report changes in
circumstance of their migrants. It seems odd that sponsors who have been
rigorously assessed and awarded an 'A' rating should then be subject to harsh
penalties for minor administrative oversights, especially in the context of a wholly
new system. We recommend therefore that the Government introduces a degree of
leeway for 'A' rated sponsors within which they will not be penalised. The
Government must also make explicit to sponsors exactly how and when they can
expect penalties to be applied, in order to allay the current insecurity felt by
employers and educators. (Paragraph 136)
20. We were alarmed to hear that the system gives UK Border Agency officials wide
powers of entry and inspection on sponsors' premises. We recommend that the
exercise of these powers be limited strictly to the inspection of files and paperwork
relating to the sponsorship of migrants. (Paragraph 137)

21. Given the unfortunate propensity of previous large-scale Home Office IT

systems to fail, we fully sympathise with the nervousness felt by universities about a
Sponsorship Management System which relies entirely on a Home Office IT project.
The consequences for the reputation, functioning and finances of UK businesses and
educational establishments of any failure of the system at peak times of the year, are
potentially dramatic. (Paragraph 138)

22. In this context we welcome the considered decision of the UK Border Agency to
phase implementation of the system for the higher education sector and involve the
sector in its design. However, the Government must still ensure that the system is
thoroughly tested in the UK and abroad, and that pilots are run with universities in
advance of the implementation date of autumn 2009, which will fall during the peak
period for university enrolment. It must also ensure that adequate back up of the
technology is in place. (Paragraph 139)

23. We welcome the response of the UK Border Agency to concerns voiced by the
education sector about the speed of implementation of the Sponsorship
Management System, and its decision to implement the system more gradually for
Tier 4 to allow for testing. However, we urge the UK Border Agency also to ensure
adequate time for piloting, testing and feedback with users for every other aspect of
the Sponsorship Management System—this is vital not only to ensure that largely
untried technology and systems actually work, but also to secure the confidence of
sponsors. (Paragraph 140)

Administrative review

24. We agree that an administrative review on objective criteria will be more

transparent and easier to administer. However, requiring a new application and a
fresh fee for failing to furnish the UK Border Agency with rigidly defined types of
paperwork is palpably unfair. This is particularly the case for applicants from
countries in which the use of documents such as payslips is not common practice.
That some applicants are unable to meet the documentation requirements through
circumstances beyond their control is apparent from our conversations with UK
Border Agency officials in New Delhi. We therefore recommend that applicants
should be able to submit additional documentation, if it is requested, without having
to make an entirely fresh application and pay another fee. (Paragraph 149)

25. The Government should provide for an independent review of visa refusal cases
under the Points Based System by the Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency,
but, in a departure from the current situation, the Chief Inspector must be given the
authority to investigate individual cases, and the power to provide appropriate
remedy to applicants. The Chief Inspector should also be asked to review visa
applications that have been successfully granted to ensure that they were correctly
issued. (Paragraph 150)

Biometric visas and delays

26. The requirement for applicants to provide biometrics in person for visas and
the inevitable delays associated with this process seems to be causing
disproportionate delays and expense to applicants. The challenge with providing
biometrics is especially acute for migrants in certain parts of the world where
biometric collection centres are few and far between, such as certain African
countries. However there seem to be insufficient biometric collection centres in most
countries. We recommend that the Government should as a matter of urgency
establish more biometric collection points, including the provision of mobile
biometric collection centres. (Paragraph 160)

27. The UK Border Agency is consistently failing to meet its own target times for
visa processing. It is unacceptable that applicants very frequently have to wait more
than ten working days—not even from when they make the application, but from
the point at which the decision centre receives the paperwork—for a visa decision,
and often up to three or four times that long. Our witnesses are right to express
concern about the new system, particularly where a visa is needed quickly, such as
in the case of international performers or artists, in which cases it is by no means
clear that an applicant will receive their visa in time. The UK Border Agency must
improve its processing times as a matter of urgency. It must also ensure that there is
a streamlined procedure for emergency applications, so that urgent cases can be
processed in 24 to 48 hours in every country. (Paragraph 161)

Responsiveness of the UK Border Agency

28. It is clear that the UK Border Agency was initially slow in providing adequate
information about the operation of the new system, and in some cases failed to
provide vital guidance in advance of tiers going live. However, our witnesses agreed
that the Agency has done much to remedy this situation and has made concerted
efforts not only to engage in constructive and timely dialogue, but also to display a
willingness to adjust the system where stakeholders have demonstrated that it is
desirable on a point of principle or pragmatism to do so. This is to the UK Border
Agency's credit. It is crucial that it continues to demonstrate pragmatic flexibility,
especially in the first months of a new system. (Paragraph 166)

29. However, there are a few specific areas in which UK Border Agency can clearly
improve its engagement and communication. These are: to improve the quality of
advice and knowledge of staff available through its telephone helpline; to increase
the quality of advice and guidance available at overseas posts; and to ensure that the
different parts of the UK Border Agency are communicating effectively, to
guarantee that promises or decisions made by policy-makers in the design of the
system are always enacted by operational staff, wherever in the world they are
located. (Paragraph 167)

SECTOR-SPECIFIC ISSUES

Catering and hospitality

30. The evidence we received suggests that a qualitative distinction should be drawn
between low-skilled labour—of which the international catering industry appears to
be experiencing a shortage, attributable at least in part to unattractive wages and
working conditions—and skilled roles, such as that of specialist chef. (Paragraph
186)

31. Although witnesses argued persuasively that loss of migrant labour to fill low-
skilled roles in international catering may well have a negative impact on
communities overall, and in some cases lead to restaurant closures, these social
aspects alone cannot make the case for including what are essentially low-skilled
jobs on the shortage occupation lists. More attention needs therefore to be paid to
alternative ways to fill these shortages, including through the active recruitment of
UK and EEA nationals. In this endeavour two aspects will be important: first, the
provision of specific training in international cuisine skills within training courses in
the UK; and second, an undertaking by the industry to improve the basic rate of
pay and conditions attracted by the low-skilled jobs. (Paragraph 187)

32. During the course of our inquiry skilled chefs were included on the UK shortage
occupation list, subject to a minimum wage requirement of £8.45 per hour. This
should go a good way towards meeting the concerns of our witnesses, including
those over difficulties in meeting salary requirements and formal qualifications
under Tier 2. The shortage occupation lists are due to be revised in September 2009:
we recommend that skilled chefs are kept on the list, since it is clear that the
arguments made in favour of their inclusion were not linked to temporary
fluctuations in the British economy so much as the need to replenish specialist skills
from particular countries. (Paragraph 188)

33. We note the establishment by the Bangladeshi Government of a catering trades

training college in Sylhet, Bangladesh, which we consider would help formalise
much of the experience currently gained on-the-job, and give those migrants the
qualifications needed formally to recognise skill under the points system.
(Paragraph 189)

34. However, we have concerns, arising from our seminar in North Kensington,
that there may be businessmen within the Bangladeshi community who prefer to
employ Bangladeshi citizens from Bangladesh over Bangladeshis who have already
received leave to remain in the UK, because the former are willing to work for lower
wages. (Paragraph 190)
35. Although we accept that English is often not the 'language of the kitchen', we
reiterate our view, expressed earlier (paragraph 115) that it is not unreasonable to
require those living in this country to possess a basic level of English. (Paragraph
191)

Health and social care

36. The evidence we received suggests to us that there is a sustained and chronic
shortage of care workers within the UK and EEA. This conclusion is supported by
JobCentre Plus data showing that the vacancy-to-unemployment ratio for the
period February 2008 to January 2009 stands at 1.88, compared with 0.38 for all
occupations, and the conclusions of the Migration Advisory Committee. It is also
clear that much of the sector has long depended on certain immigrant communities
—such as the Filipino community—to fill many of these posts. (Paragraph 209)

37. We were pleased to hear that the nursing sector does not appear to be suffering
from a shortage, due in no small part to improved training initiatives for the
resident population. However, we note the concerns of the Royal College of Nursing
that the nursing diploma in the UK and certain nursing qualifications overseas do
not seem to be recognised adequately under the Points Based System. It is clear
from the Minister's response that lower points awarded to a diploma rather than a
degree, combined with lower salaries in some parts of the country, are proving
prohibitive to some nurses. We note that the Government is already reviewing this
situation, but recommend that it specifically recalibrates the awarding of points for
nurses to ensure that all nurses who possess a diploma and are registered with the
Nursing and Midwifery Council attract the same points as those holding a degree
and registration. (Paragraph 210)

38. We do not consider the loss of points for doctors under the Tier 1 age category
to present an insurmountable obstacle and believe that qualified doctors should
have no difficulty gaining compensatory points in other categories. (Paragraph 211)

Information and communications technology

39. We were presented with conflicting evidence on the requirements of the

information and communications sector in the UK and internationally. On the one
hand, the global businesses we met in India argued persuasively for the need to
allow skilled workers to transfer between their different international offices, and
that they could not always locate certain specialist skills from within the UK
graduate workforce. On the other hand, evidence to the Migration Advisory
Committee from the Sector Skills Council for IT denied the existence of any serious
shortage, and the Professional Contractors' Group suggested to us that the use of
intra-company transfers was removing jobs from the UK workforce. (Paragraph
223)
40. The figure cited by the Migration Advisory Committee, that around a quarter
of non-EEA migrants surveyed in the second quarter of 2008 were found to be in the
UK on a form of intra-company transfer, certainly raises a suspicion that this route
is being used disproportionately. We also note that the number of intra-company
transfers granted went up by 47 per cent between 2004 and 2008, whilst the
economy has moved into recession, which we consider to be a striking increase. We
note that intra-company transfers give a significant amount of discretion to
individual companies to determine who may enter the UK to work and possibly to
settle and become citizens. We therefore conclude that urgent and rigorous
investigation is needed into the intra-company transfer and possible abuses of this
route, and agree that, at the very least, more stringent tests of company-specific
knowledge may be required. In this context we welcome the review currently being
undertaken by the Migration Advisory Committee, and keenly await the results in
July. (Paragraph 224)

41. We underline however, that investment in the UK by major international

companies is of huge benefit to the UK economy. We caution that it is very much in
the UK's interests to ensure that good relations with global businesses continue. The
imposition of unnecessarily prohibitive restrictions or administrative burdens
should therefore be avoided. (Paragraph 225)

Legal services

42. We welcome the changes made by the UK Border Agency to the registration
process for Tier 5 overarching sponsor bodies, to enable international legal and
financial firms to continue to run exchange schemes and maintain partnerships with
international law firms in other jurisdictions. (Paragraph 234)

Higher education and students

43. We conclude that it is illogical for sponsored academic researchers to fall under
Tier 5. Academic researchers, perhaps unlike other temporary workers under Tier
5, typically come to a specific institution for a specific project and specific time
period. Given that the institutions to which they will be attached will already hold a
licence to sponsor students, requiring researchers to obtain sponsorship from an
entirely unconnected third party simply seems to be reinventing the wheel. In
addition there currently exists no such suitable overarching body. We therefore
recommend that the Government revise the sponsorship provisions of Tier 5 to
allow higher education institutions to sponsor their own academic researchers.
(Paragraph 243)

44. We welcome the flexibility shown by the UK Border Agency in meeting the
concerns of the higher education sector over visa length, and the issue of multiple
certificates of acceptance for study to the same student. We heard of incidents where
visiting academics had been prevented from attending events at UK universities by
overly-bureaucratic requirements for paperwork. Although there does not appear
to be widespread concern in the sector over this issue, we recommend that the UK
Border Agency investigate the extent to which such cases are occurring. (Paragraph
247)

Arts and entertainment

45. As discussed earlier (paragraph 111-112), we consider the use of formal

qualifications as a proxy for professional experience and training to be inadequate,
and we reiterate our position that the Government must recalibrate the allocation of
points to recognise professional experience and training. However, we welcome the
inclusion of 'skilled ballet dancers', 'skilled contemporary dancers' and 'skilled
orchestral musician' on the latest UK shortage occupation list as an interim
measure. (Paragraph 255)

46. We agree that the time delays associated with obtaining biometric visas make it
almost impossible for international artists and performers to be recruited in an
emergency situation, in which they might require a visa to be issued within 24
hours. Although the industry has in the past appealed in such situations directly to
Ministers, this seems an extremely cumbersome process to be adopted as routine.
We therefore recommend that a specific exemption be made to enable fast-tracking
of visas for exceptional emergency cases such as international artistic replacements.
(Paragraph 260)

Agriculture and horticulture

47. The Government needs to make explicit to the agricultural and horticultural
industries what provision it intends to make for low-skilled labour to replace the
Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme, and must do so well in advance of the
anticipated closure of the Scheme in January 2010. (Paragraph 267)

48. The economic downturn has already created shortages in seasonal labour for
these sectors. The Government should consider how temporary seasonal labour
needs could better be met through Tier 5, in particular making the Youth Mobility
Scheme more user-friendly. This should begin with reducing the maintenance
requirement, currently set at £1,600, which is an unrealistic sum to expect students
entering the UK for temporary periods to possess. (Paragraph 268)

MPs' representations

49. We note the introduction of an online case tracking system and dedicated
account managers to respond to MPs' representations in immigration and asylum
cases. However, too many MPs remain dissatisfied with the quality and speed of
response to their representations. It is clear from comments made by MPs in
response to our survey that officials are right to diagnose the transfer of Visa
Customer Services from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the UK Border
Agency as a turning point for a deterioration in standards of service. Attention must
be given by the UK Border Agency to improving the speed of their service, and
improving significantly on the current performance of only responding to 60 per
cent of MPs' representations within their target time of 20 days. (Paragraph 285)

50. On several previous occasions—including in our recent Report, Monitoring of

the UK Border Agency (published on 12 January 2009)—we have recommended in
no uncertain terms that visa Refusal Notices must refrain from using standardised
paragraphs or unintelligible jargon, and should instead set out clearly and plainly
the individual reasons for a refusal. It is essential that precisely the same principles
apply also to responses to MPs' representations, which must address the specific
points and circumstances raised by MPs. They are currently failing to do so.
(Paragraph 286)

51. Whilst we note the Minister for Identity's efforts personally to read and respond
to correspondence, it is clear to us that no busy government minister could consider
in detail the 30 or 40 letters a day she confirmed that she received. We were also
concerned about a shortage of ministerial time available to deal with MPs'
representations given inadequate cover arrangements made by the Government for
the Minister for Identity's absence on maternity leave, especially in the context of a
likely increase in MPs' representations with the right of appeal being removed
under the Points Based System. (Paragraph 287)

52. We remain seriously concerned about the scale of the backlog in processing
historic asylum cases, the consequence of which is that many of our constituents are
being advised that their case may not be concluded before 2011. Although in our
view MPs should appeal directly to ministers only as a last resort, to ensure that
ministers can give priority to the most urgent cases, we entirely understand the
frustration of many MPs over the huge delays in processing cases which drives them
to appeal directly to ministers. (Paragraph 288)

53. We consider that constituents' representations to MPs, and MPs'

representations to the UK Border Agency and ministers, will increase under the
Points Based System, since the system contains no independent right of appeal
against visa refusals. This could lead to MPs and ministers becoming an alternative
appeals process, although it would be inappropriate for anyone to receive
preferential treatment simply as a result of an MP making representations. We
therefore recommend that the UK Border Agency must prepare for an increase in
representations, including by increasing the capacity of the MPs' Hotline and Visa
Customer Services, and by liaising with MPs to advise them how best to advise
constituents refused visas under the new system. (Paragraph 289)

54. The essence of dealing with MPs' representations is the provision of good
customer service to those who seek information about their cases. Even UK Border
Agency senior officials admit that they can 'do much better'. We agree with them.
(Paragraph 290)
What is Administrative Review?
If we refuse your application for entry clearance under the points-based system and you
think that an error has been made, you can ask us to check our decision. This is known as
an Administrative Review. The review will, for example, look at whether your claimed
points were correctly assessed.
Please note that a decision to refuse any dependant’s application for entry clearance as
the spouse / partner / child of a points-based system migrant attracts a limited or full right
of appeal as opposed to an Administrative review. This is because an Administrative
review is used to assess whether points have been correctly awarded and your
dependants are not applying under the points system.
The Administrative Review is free of charge. You must ask for an Administrative Review
within 28 days from the date you receive the refusal notice (GV51).
Administrative Review Request Notice
PBS Administrative Review Request Notice guidance notes
You must complete this in full and send it directly to the address stated on the Request
Notice.
You MUST NOT send any additional documents such as passport/travel document or
supporting documents with the Administrative Review Request Notice. If the refusal is
subsequently overturned, you will be asked to send in your passport/travel document. You
may request only ONE Administrative Review per refusal decision. Any further review
requests for the same refusal decision will not be accepted and will be returned to you.
The Administrative Review will be completed within 28 days and you will be notified of the
result in writing. The result of the Review may be sent from a different Post to where the
original decision was made, to ensure that the Review is independent.

Requirment vac doc

(GENERAL) STUDENT
If your course of study is English Language that is at Level A2 of the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and you have been assessed by means of
reference(s), you must provide the original reference(s) which must include your name,
confirmation of the type and level of study undertaken and details of the period of study.
References must also be dated and include contact details of the referee.
If you are unable to provide the original reference, you must provide full contact details of the
referee(s) who provided references to the sponsor as evidence of your English language studies.
Academic Technology Approval Scheme (ATAS) Clearance Certificate - (General) Students
only
Please refer to the Tier 4 Guidance for directions on what to do if your intended study subject
falls into one of the categories described.
STUDENTS UNDER 18 YEARS OLD
All students under 18 years old will need to get their parent(s) or legal guardian’s written consent
to the care arrangements for their travel to, reception and care whilst in the United Kingdom,
before permission to enter will be given. See the Tier 4 Guidance for details of what the written
consent should include.
16 and 17 year olds have the legal right to live independently in the United Kingdom, and so
make their own arrangements for accommodation. In these circumstances the letter should
confirm that the parent(s) or legal guardian consent to the 16 or 17 year old living independently
and also to their independent travel to the United Kingdom.
Maintenance (Funds)
Visa Letter: Fees/Maintenance
Your Visa Letter must show the cost of the fees. This should also show what fees you have
already paid, otherwise you should send an official, original receipt confirming some or all of the
fees (and accommodation, if applicable) have been paid.
If you are using a bank loan as your evidence, the bank must be regulated by an official
regulatory body and you must provide a document from the bank confirming the loan. If you do
not get the bank loan until you have your visa, you must provide the original document confirming
the loan. The loan should be dated no more than 6 months before the date of the application.
You must show that you have enough money to pay your fees and monthly living costs for at
least the first year of studies (or the length of your course if it is shorter than 9 months).
We cannot accept unsupported online receipts. We will use the closing balance of the document
you provide as the level of funds available to you. This is also the date we will use to check the
value of your money in pounds sterling.
(GENERAL) STUDENT AND (CHILD) STUDENT AGED 16 OR 17 LIVING INDEPENDENTLY:
OWN FUNDS
This must be in the form of cash funds in the bank (this includes savings accounts and current
accounts even when notice must be given, loan or official, financial government sponsorship
available to you. Other accounts or financial instruments such as shares, bonds, pension funds,
etc., regardless of notice period are not acceptable. If you wish to rely on a joint account as
evidence of available funds, you must be named on the account along with one or more other
named individual. If you wish to use money held in an account owned by your parent(s) / legal
guardian, you must show evidence that you are related to your parent(s) / legal guardian and that
your parent(s) / legal guardian has given permission to use this money. If you have an offer of a
bank loan confirmed that will be available on the issue of your visa, you must provide the original
document confirming the loan. All evidence, except for loans, must be dated no more than one
calendar month before the application is made and show that the money has been in your
account for at least 28 days. The end of that 28 day period must not be more than one
month before the date of your application.
Overseas funds must be converted into pounds sterling so that we can assess them. The official
exchange rate we use is the one produced by OANDA. You should use the exchange rate on the
 website for the date the document was issued. This is an independent website, for which we are
not responsible.
Only the following documents will be accepted as evidence:
• Personal bank or building society statements;
• Savings account/building society pass book/s;
• Letter from your bank or building society;
• Letter from a financial institution regulated by the home regulator (official regulatory body
for the country in which the institution operates and the funds are located) confirming funds or
loan.
Personal bank or building society statements
These should clearly show:
• Your name/the name of your parent(s) or legal guardian, if applicable;
• Your account number;
• The date of the statement;
• The financial institution’s name and logo;
• The level of funds available.
Ad hoc bank statements printed on the bank’s letterhead are allowed as evidence, but not if they
are mini-statements from cash points. If you wish to send electronic bank statements from an
online account they must have all of the details listed above. You will also need to send a
supporting letter from your bank, on company headed paper, confirming the authenticity of the
statements provided. An electronic bank statement bearing the official stamp of the bank will be
accepted. This stamp should appear on every page of the statement.
Savings account/building society pass books
These should clearly show:
• Your name/the name of your parent(s) or legal guardian, if applicable;
• Your account number;
• The financial institution’s name and logo;
• The level of funds available.
Letter from a bank confirming funds
These should clearly show:
• Your name/the name of your parent(s) or legal guardian if applicable;
• Your account number;
• The date of the letter;
• The financial institution’s name and logo;
• The funds held in your account;
• That there is enough money in the account to cover your tuition fees and living costs.
Letter from a regulated financial institution confirming funds or loan
These should clearly show:
• Your name/the name of your parent(s) or legal guardian if applicable;
• Your account number (unless for a loan);
• The date of the letter;
• The financial institution’s name and logo;
and either
• The funds held in your account; or
• The funds available to you as a loan.
Students using money held by his / her parents
If you are relying on money held by your parent(s) / legal guardian, you must show that you are
related to your parent(s) / legal guardian. You must provide either:
1. your birth certificate showing names of your parent(s);

2. your certificate of adoption showing names of both parent(s) or legal guardian;

3. a court document naming your legal guardian.

The document must be the original legal document or a notarised copy.

If you are relying on money held by your parent(s) / legal guardian, you must also show that your
parent(s) / legal guardian has given their permission for you to use this money. You must provide:
1. a letter from your parent(s) or legal guardian.

The letter must confirm:

• the relationship between you and your parent(s) or legal guardian; and
• that your parent(s) or legal guardian have given their consent to you using their funds to
study in the UK.

Latest news around 13 of December

Pakistanis are more likely to be refused visas to visit the UK than any other nationals,
figures show.

Some 41% of applications for family visitor visas from Pakistan were rejected in the last
year, according to Home Office statistics revealed by the BBC last week.

Bangladeshis were the second least successful with a refusal rate of 31%. The figure for
neighbouring India was just 14%.

Lib Dem MP for Brent East in London, Sarah Teather, blames discrimination by the
Home Office, but the Government denies this.

Tougher controls are thought by some people to be due to growing controversy over
immigration, and fears visitors are staying beyond their visa and disappearing into the
UK.

Critics say many genuine applicants are not being allowed to visit their relations for
important occasions such as weddings and funerals.

Ms Teather said the government needs to “urgently review” their practice and “look at
why it is so many Pakistani family visa are being refused”.

The Lib Dem MP said: “Why is it so high in comparison with other countries? Is this bad
practice?

“It does look on the face of it as though it’s blatant discrimination against Pakistanis.

“It’s as if they’ve decided that all Pakistanis are going to overstay and as a consequences
are refusing their visas.”

The Home Office rejected accusations of discrimination and said it refused applications
only when they were unsatisfactory.
Date 14 of Dec:

Applicants must show they will leave the country when they are supposed to and have
sufficient funds for their stay, it added.

But the UK Border Agency rejected claims that applicants from Pakistan are more
likely to be refused visas.

Chief Executive of the UK Border Agency Lin Homer, said:

‘We do not discriminate against any individual nationality, to suggest otherwise is

false. Applications from Pakistan are assessed in the same manner and against the
same immigration rules as applications from every other nationality.

‘I am confident that we operate a firm and fair visa operation. It is the UK Border
Agency’s responsibility to prevent entry to the UK those who do not meet our entry
criteria while welcoming legitimate trade and travel.

‘Entry Clearance Officers consider each visa application on its individual merits and
will refuse an application where they are not satisfied that the applicant meets the
requirements of the visitor rules.

‘It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure they meet these rules and provide
sufficient evidence to support their application. Any person who has been refused a
family visit visa may have the right to appeal against the decision.’

‘The work of the whole UK Border Agency, including the visa operation, is subject to
scrutiny and oversight by the independent Chief Inspector, John Vine.’

Entry Clearance Officers (ECO’s) have previously been accused of being too easy on
Pakistani visa applicants following the arrest of 11 terror suspects from Pakistan in
April.

The Visa processing for Pakistan in now carried out by teams based in the UAE, under
the regionalised ‘hub and spoke’ scheme, and ECO’s were thought to lack local
knowledge.

Hajra Awan 14 December at 16:39 Reply

We are going to organize a fashion show in Mid. March 2010. We are looking for fresh
arts graduate and upcomming models / designers...we want to promote the youth and
talent. we are also looking for volunteer students who want to perform in this mega
fashion show. looking forward. contact organizer @ 03345717250 for more info. regards.
This site for fm in uk nice I love this site good site

For English help its guide very well to collect softwear nice stte I m very thankful to
thiws site
http://www.englishwriting.net/exclusive-offers/

Its run in I tune very good site http://www.branchfm.co.uk/

This site for fm in uk nice I love this site good site
Its run in I tune very good site http://www.branchfm.co.uk/

Very nice site for English learn I like too

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/